Skip to main content

View Diary: What If You Pulled Back the Curtain and Found a Real Wizard? (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, yes, we have A SYSTEM of checks in place. (11+ / 0-)

    The question is, is it good enough?

    I think it could use a few tweaks, myself.

    But you're right - this is not the obedient rubber stamp that some of led us to believe.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 08:36:22 AM PDT

    •  Here's my thing, joe from Lowell: (12+ / 0-)

      I have suggested many potential improvements, including having the Civil Liberties Protection Officer for each agency attend every hearing, creating a "Civil Rights Panel" of people who already have Top Secret security clearances but who don't work, and have never worked for, the NSA to appear at each hearing, with each of the panel members appointed evenly by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, and, finally, having the FISC Judge appointments handled by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate (and not by one Chief Justice).

      I also believe there is a balance that can be struck between the important duties of the NSA and our rights.

      If you read the opinion, though, what you will come away with is that every party takes privacy and the Fourth Amendment seriously. I think the balance was struck appropriately. Moreover, the use of what amounts to an Advisory Opinion is smart and appropriate. Make the Government prove, before it can open a chest of information, that it will provide the appropriate safeguards.    

      Rand Paul is to civil liberties as the Disney Channel is to subtle and nuanced acting.

      by Tortmaster on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 09:02:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree they take it seriously. I'm sick of... (8+ / 0-)

        the Snidely Whiplash cartoons that get thrown around here.

        We should be talking about the structure, how the system works, as you do in your first paragraph.

        But, then, you and I are assuming that there are such things as legitimate national security concerns, legitimate needs for secrecy, and legitimate signals intelligence work - as opposed to some techno-anarcho-utopian fantasy of absolute transparency.

        The people drawing the Snidely Whiplash cartoons are not trying to make the system work within the legitimate parameters of the Constitution. They are trying to destroy it, and their input bears about as much relevance to the meaningful discussion we need to have as the Republicans' commentary on the ACA bears to issues of health care reform. They just don't accept the legitimacy of the enterprise at its root.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 09:20:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tortmaster
        every party takes privacy and the Fourth Amendment seriously.
        privacy, no, the Fourth Amendment as a trigger for the exclusionary rule, yes.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 06:39:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've seen plenty of diaries on ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WB Reeves

          ... daily kos, enhydra lutris, about parallel case construction, and now I'm seeing you argue that this decision was rendered just to keep evidence included at trial. Which is it?

          I would note, though, that this decision was rendered "Classified: TOP SECRET." Why was there a need to shamelessly do kabuki theater about rights when the Court and the parties had every reason to believe that this decision would probably not be made public for another 70 years? Occam's Razor and such ....

          Rand Paul is to civil liberties as the Disney Channel is to subtle and nuanced acting.

          by Tortmaster on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 10:49:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Every party? (0+ / 0-)

        Are you kidding?  You do realize there's only one party in these cases, right?  That party is the government agency requesting approval.  If you read the opinion, you'll see that the court refers multiple times to the government's "ex parte application" for this or that certification.  Ex parte means there are no other parties that have been notified of the request being made of the court.  

        This is hardly surprising, because there are no opposing parties when it comes to these cases.  No one is allowed to probe to see whether the government's representations are true.  Indeed, in this very opinion the judge admits that he can't veryify the accuracy of the information the government is feeding him.  He only became aware of the misrepresentations he discusses because the government finally admitted to them.  

        On another note, I'm not sure why you'd be endorsing advisory opinions.  They're quite clearly prohibited under Supreme Court case law.  In this instance, however, I don't know that the advisory opinion rubric applies, since what is happening here is akin (I think) to issuance of a warrant.

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 03:51:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site